Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Criminal Law > Chapter 12: Non-fatal offences - Section 18 OAPA 1861 > Flashcards

Chapter 12: Non-fatal offences - Section 18 OAPA 1861 Flashcards

1
Q

What are the 5 offences of non-fatal offences?

A
  1. Grievous bodily harm (serious)
  2. Grievous bodily harm (normal)
  3. Actual bodily harm (‘mild’)
  4. Battery
  5. Assault
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What are the respective statutes for each offence?

A

Grievous bodily harm (serious)

  • Section 18 Offences Against the Persons Act 1861

Grievous bodily harm (normal)

  • Section 20 OAPA 1861

Actual bodily harm (‘mild’)

  • Section 48 OAPA 1861

Battery

  • Section 39 CJA 1988

Assault

  • Section 39 CJA 1988
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is the overview of Section 18 OAPA 1861?

A
  • Ulterior intent crime
  • Voluntary intoxication - good defence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is the sentencing for Section 18 OAPA 1861?

A

Life sentencing

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What is the definition of section 18 OAPA 1861 (GBH - serious)?

A

“Whoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever wound or cause any grievous bodily harm to any person with intent… to do some… grievous bodily harm to any person, or with intent to resist or prevent lawful apprehension or detainer of any person, shall be guilty of an offence, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to imprisonment for life

  • Unlawfully - AR (from section 20)
  • Maliciously - MR (from section 20)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What is an important thing to note about how Section 18 MR works?

A
  1. AR is parallel up until Malicious (MR)
  2. Until the point it reaches ‘prevent or resist lawful apprehension’ (MR) - This would be the ulterior intent (intention that is outside their scope of what they are doing)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What are the 4 elements in Section 18 OAPA?

A

AR (same as section 20)

  1. Unlawful
  2. Wound; or
  3. Cause grievous bodily harm

MR

  • Malicious (intention or reckless) (same as section 20); and
  • Intention to cause GBH; or Intention to prevent or resist lawful apprehension (arrest)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What is a wound?

as per section 20

A

When an injury breaks the whole skin (external skin)

  • It must show blood, breaking all 3 layers of the skin
  • There must be breakage in the skin (R v Smith)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What is the case for what is a “wound”?

A

Moriaty v Brooks [1834]

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Moriaty v Brooks [1834]

“wound”

A

Facts

  1. Plaintiff was cut under the eye
  2. Bled

Held - Lord Lyndhurst

  1. “The definition of a wound in criminal cases is an injury to the person by which the skin is broken. If the skin is broken, and there was bleeding, that is a wound”

This constitutes a “wound”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What are the 3 cases that showcase what a “wound” is not?

A
  • R v McLoughlin [1938]
  • C (A Minor) v Eisenhower [1984]
  • R v Wood
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

R v McLoughlin [1938]

Not a wound

A

Held

  • Abrasion does not amount to a “wound”
  • The skin must be broken
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

C (A Minor) v Eisenhower [1984]

Not a wound

A

Facts

  1. D, aged 15, was involved in an accident where V was hit by air gun pellet near his eye
  2. D charged with unlawfully & maliciously wounding C contrary to Section 20 OAPA 1861

Held

  1. Rupture of internal blood vessels was not sufficient to constitute a would for the purposes of Section 20 OAPA 1861
  2. D was not convicted
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What is cause grievous bodily harm?

As per Section 20 OAPA

A

break down into 2 parts (but still 1 element)

  1. Cause (causation)
  2. GBH (section 20)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What is cause in “cause GBH”?

A

Cause/causation

  • Injury can be caused by any means whatsoever
  • Harm can be caused by an act or by an omission in breach of duty
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What are the 2 types of cause? Explain with respective cases

A

Factual cause

  • “But for” test (R v White)

Legal cause

  • Operating and substantial cause (R v Dhaliwal)
  • Note - the act of the defendant need not be the main/sole cause, as long as the act of defendant was significant (R v Pagett)
17
Q

What is there to note about the ‘cause’ in section 18?

A

‘Cause’ under Section 18 is wide enough to be interpreted into Section 20 ‘inflict’

2 types

  1. Direct infliction of force
  2. Indirect infliction of force (medium)
18
Q

What are the 3 cases for indirect infliction of force (by medium)?

interpreted ‘cause’ into ‘inflict’

A
  • Haystead v CC of Derbyshire [2000]
  • R v Martin
  • DPP v K
19
Q

What is Grievous bodily harm?

same as section 20

A

Very serious, not necessary that harm should be permanent/dangerous.

So long as seriously interfering with comfort or health, it is sufficient

20
Q

What is the 3 cases for physical harm for GBH?

A
  • R v Ashman [1858]
  • DPP v Smith [1961]
  • R v Saunders [1985] & Janjua and Choudhury [1999]
21
Q

What are the 2 cases for psychic harm?

Used to not be able take into account mental harm

A

R v Ireland and Burstow [1998]

R v Chan Fook

22
Q

What is the meaning of Maliciously in the first step of MR?

same as section 20

A

Maliciously is not wickedness but rather a)intention or b)recklessness (in subjective sense) in causing some harm

23
Q

What is the case for intent or reckessly malicious?

A

R v Mowatt [1967]

24
Q

R v Mowatt [1967]

Malicious

A

Held - Lord Diplock

  • “… the word maliciously does import upon the part of the person who unlawfully inflicts the wound or other GBH an awareness that his act may have the consequence of causing some physical harm to some other person. It is quite unnecessary that the accused should have foreseen that his unlawful act might cause physical harm of the gravity described in Section 20 i.e. a wound or serious physical injury. It is enough that he should have foreseen that some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character, might result.”

Takeaway

  • The intention does not have to be the gravity of Section 20

Note

  • Doesn’t have to intend a specific harm (just some harm)
    D can intend to inflict GBH, but be charged for a wound (vice versa)
  • As long as there is “some” harm
25
Q

What are the 2 intents in the 2nd step of MR? (coupled with ulterior intent)

A
  • c) Intention to cause GBH (nothing less will suffice - reckless doesn’t count); or
  • d) Intention to prevent or resist lawful apprehension (arrest)
26
Q

What are the 4 cases for ulterior intent?

A
  • R v Belfon [1976] - guidlines/what is not UIC
  • R v Morrison [1989] -
  • R v Gregory (Matthew) [2009]
  • R v Hodson (Danielle) [2009]

Criminal Law (22 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions